- From: Jon Davis <jdavis@inetinit.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 14:07:10 -0700
- To: "URI distribution list" <uri@Bunyip.Com>
- Cc: "Sam Sun" <ssun@ns.cnri.reston.va.us>, "Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>, <ietf@ietf.org>
>These said, it seems more appropriate to define URI "for representation in >spoken and written human communication" ONLY. And the URI encoding should be >defined as scheme specific. Some URI schemes (e.g. "http:") may require a >single encoding. While other URI schemes (e.g. "hld:") would allow any >native encoding to be used. The conversion from the human entered URI to the >network protocol is handled by the scheme specific Resolver. If I may be so naive, arriving at such a late time as this, I would tend to agree. I would think we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we prematurely created specifications on a broad scale that hindered progress therein, rather than encouraged it. Specifically, it is the encoding limitations described here. Or, in my case, it is the fact that the acceptable form of a hostname in a URI is defined in the URI rather than strictly within the scheme used to to dermine the hostname. On a broader scale, defining limitations with specifications based entirely on the scope of the technical capabilities of a single period in technology history is a sad, sad mistake for the IETF. But then, I may just be naive. Jon Davis
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 1998 17:23:54 UTC